The Bombay High Court upheld an order directing Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust to pay Rs 11.67 lakh in gratuity with 10% interest to former manager Rajesh Somnath Nerkar, who served for 23 years. The court also imposed Rs 1 lakh in costs and directed payment within six weeks.

The Bombay High Court has upheld a gratuity payment to former Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust manager Rajesh Somnath Nerkar | AI Generated Representational Image

Mumbai, September 2, 2026: Holding that an employer cannot keep an employee waiting endlessly for gratuity, the Bombay High Court has dismissed a plea by the Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust challenging an order directing it to pay Rs 11.67 lakh to its former manager, who served the club for 23 years.

Justice Sandeep Marne, on September 1, also imposed costs of Rs 1 lakh on the Trust, observing that it had failed to avail of several opportunities available under the law and could not later bypass the statutory remedy by directly approaching the High Court.

The court upheld the order of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act directing the Trust to pay gratuity to former manager Rajesh Somnath Nerkar.

Termination And Gratuity Dispute

`;

Nerkar joined the Trust in November 2000 and was later appointed manager. His services were terminated on July 2, 2023, following allegations that he had shredded original membership records during a digitisation exercise.

The Trust claimed that Nerkar's actions had caused losses of Rs 5 crore and argued that his gratuity could be forfeited. However, the court noted that the City Civil Court had held his termination to be illegal, though appeals against that decision are pending.

The Controlling Authority, in November 2025, directed the Trust to pay Nerkar Rs 11,67,785 along with 10% interest. The Trust challenged the order before the High Court, claiming that it had not been properly served with notices in the gratuity proceedings.

Court Rejects Notice Objection

Rejecting this contention, Justice Marne held that the notices had been duly served through the Trust's Administrative Manager.

The court noted that the Trust had also failed to challenge the gratuity order within the statutory period.

“The legislative intent is not to permit the errant employer to keep the employee under long litigation,” the court observed.

The judge said the Trust had “consciously not availed multiple opportunities” available to it and could not subsequently file a direct petition before the High Court.

Court Finds No Ground To Forfeit Gratuity

On the merits of the case too, the court found no valid reason to deny gratuity. It noted that the Trust had not issued the mandatory notice required for forfeiture of gratuity.

Also Watch:

“Merely because there are disputes between the two managing committees, the same does not mean that the Respondent should be denied gratuity for the 23 long years of service rendered by him,” the court said.

The petition was dismissed, with the court directing the Trust to pay the dues and costs within six weeks.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/

Add As a

Trusted Source